9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 650X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the all inclusive price. Subsequently they found that they were not liable to pay CST for the impugned clearances. Accordingly they worked out the duty due on account of wrong abatement of CST and paid an amount of Rs. 2,46,313/-on 3-2-2004. A Show Cause Notice was issued by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner disposing which he confirmed a demand of interest of Rs. 53,345/- on the differential duty (Rs. 2,46,313/-) for the period of delay from the respective successive months of clearances of the impugned goods. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) vacated the demand of interest. In taking the decision, he followed the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mysore Electrical Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore-III. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to them from their customers. The differential duty was due at that time i.e. when the revised rates applicable with retrospective effect were learnt by the Assessee, which was much after the clearance of the goods and therefore, question of payment of interest does not arise as the duty was paid as soon as it was learnt that it was payable. Finding that provisions of Section 11A(2) and 11A(2B) were not applicable as the situation occurred in the instant case was quite different, Section 11AB(1) was not at all applicable, and therefore, the Assessee was not required to pay interest. 4.1 In the instant case, the assessee short paid the duty due and made good the short payment when they came to know that they had computed the duty due du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. 4.3 The impugned order relied on a decision of the Tribunal in Mysore Electrical Industries Ltd. Bangalore v. CCE, Bangalore-III vide Final Order No. 1575/2005 dated 6-9-2005, which, inter alia, held as follows :- We are of the considered opinion that in the facts and circumstances and in view of the fact that there is no provision for recovery of interest in cases of supplementary invoices on price variation clause the demand of interest is not justified and the same set aside by allowing the appeal. 5. The above decision of the CESTAT is not relevant or applicable in the facts of the present case. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside and the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed by restoring the order of the original au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
